Even the argument that "private companies don't have to respect free speech", though one that seems disingenuous as most people making it weren't saying so with cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop v CCRC, holds little water when there is no public square alternative.
Because of the possibility of people saying things FAANG don't approve of, they are entirely deplatforming a platform.
How can they argue that they're anything but publishers, if they boot websites for simply having the potential to allow speech they disapprove of?
Even the argument that "private companies don't have to respect free speech", though one that seems disingenuous as most people making it weren't saying so with cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop v CCRC, holds little water when there is no public square alternative.
Because of the possibility of people saying things FAANG don't approve of, they are entirely deplatforming a platform.
How can they argue that they're anything but publishers, if they boot websites for simply having the potential to allow speech they disapprove of?